Our failure to formally rebuke/remove Franken and Conyers allowed the GOP to capitalize on the delay in response to allow a “both sides do it” narrative to form. Jones needed conservative Republicans willing to cross the aisle on this issue or at least willing to stay home. He’s lost that. Partly by not running an aggressive enough campaign, and partly by having other bad (though not nearly as bad Democrats) hung around his neck. It’s emails and bimbogate redux.

Obama had to win by being twice as good and had zero skeletons in his closet. Democrats have to nominate candidates like that in the future to have the credibility mantle to wield against Republicans. Our denouncement of Moore rang hollow when the same leaders rushed to blame the victims and sweep things under the Ethics Committee rug.

Good for Jones and I’ve been phonebanking for him. It’s not like I don’t want him to win. I am saying our credibility on this issue was hurt by the leaderships response to the problems on our side of the aisle.

I’ve also gone out of my way not to equate the severity of the actions. Moore committed heinous crimes against children. I’ve always made a clear distinction between that and what Conyers and Franken are accused of doing against adults. I do think we’d have a lot more credibility against Moore if our leaders had condemned all three men as unfit for public office and called for the same standards and safeguards to apply. But crimes against children are far worse. Jones is absolutely right to say Moore ought to be in prison, not the Senate.

But if you acknowledge there’s a distinction you should not simultaneously be calling for the same standards. Same standards makes no sense and is completely unfair if the allegations themselves are not the same.

Not really. I am holding them to the same standard: the acceptable number of assaults women need to ensure from elected officials should be zero.

Nobody has a right to a job. Both of these actors would be terminated for this behavior from any private sector position, going back decades. The Senate and House are woefully behind baseline standards of accountability on this issue and forcing the resignation standard gives us ammo for the expulsion standard down the line for Moore if he gets elected.

The difference is in the private sector Moore would be prosecuted for a federal felony conviction while Franken would he prosecuted for a battery misdemeanor.

But saying no criminal behavior against women will be tolerated in the Senate is distinct from saying all criminal behavior against women is equal.

It’s not. Moore should be in prison for a long time. Franken committed acts of battery that are subject to far fewer civil and criminal penalties. That doesn’t entitle him to a Senate seat either.

Sorry, no. Believe most accusers, sure, but the stakes are too high, and there are too many bad actors on the other side to operate this way. You mock the call for due process, but it does serve a purpose.

How would you determine who are the good accusers and who are the bad accusers? For Trump, it’s the bad accusers who attack him and Moore. For Randi Rhodes, it’s the bad accusers who attack Franken and Conyers. The good accusers only attack the other side and never attack their heroes.

I am with you and Mark, there should be a third party investigative wing capable of objectively verifying accusations and establishing actual accountability and a due process. There isn’t. There’s a tax payer slush fund and an Ethics Committee that is a joke.

If the rumor that the Washington Post has 40-50 Congressmen in both parties in it’s sightlines with credible accusations, than it may be time for Ryan and Pelosi to invite the FBI to investigate and step aside until they do their jobs and determine who should be prosecuted and who shouldn’t be. Both parties should stop the slush funds now. It is time that Congress and it’s leaders, especially those who call themselves feminists, act like leaders instead of Cardinal Laws worried more about protecting reputations than protecting women.

James and I have differed on this issue quite a bit, but until we have a system that ensures due process, we are left with the sloppy alternative we have now. The existing process is that someone is accused and wait around for other accusers to come out and the accused to respond. Then the public and/or his colleagues drive him out.

Once there is more than one accuser, the likelihood of the accused’s guilt skyrockets. Due process might protect his rights, but it has no monopoly on the truth.

Concerning Franken, I agreed with James after the second accuser came out. Clearly, at this point–with 8 accusers–we can assume that there was NOT a nefarious plot to take down Franken. We can also assume that Tweeden’s allegations were part of a years long pattern of behavior, which may or may not have stopped.

If the Tweeden incident had been a single, isolated incident, I don’t think I would argue for his resignation. He would not have been likely to do it again. His victim didn’t want him to resign. It would have been bad policy and poor justice for Franken to resign for what would have been a single mistake in judgment. The punishment would not fit the crime.

In liberal circles, the idea of restorative justice is cutting edge. The idea is that the perpetrator repairs the harm caused by crime. The victim and the system work out what would be the repairs would be. Franken’s resignation based on Tweeden’s allegations would not be just. She required no repairs. Unfortunately, Franken’s actions with Tweeden were part of an established pattern of behavior.

I disagree with James on zero tolerance. By assigning the same punishment to a range of actions, he’s treating them the same. Liberals would eliminate zero tolerance for drugs and minor crimes committed by people we consider underprivileged, but we don’t extend the same courtesy to people who might commit one act or a series of small acts of sexual harassment. Instead we treat them like rapists. That’s not just or liberal. It’s authoritarian.

And whatever happened to forgiveness? Sexual predators have a high recidivism rate, though it’s not 100%. Most people who tell dirty jokes or say inappropriate things can be rehabilitated. As the behavior gets more aggressive, the perpetrator may be less able to be rehabilitated and treated accordingly.

Finally, James’s contention that these problems don’t exist in the private sector because there is zero tolerance is ridiculous. Sign all the papers you want, but that doesn’t mean that the policies are followed. I’m sure NBC has these policies, but they didn’t stop Matt Lauer. There’s no reason to assume these policies and signatures have a different effect in other companies.

I haven’t talked to a lot of private sector people, though I talked to one, long-time banker about a specific incident in my school building. He didn’t think the person would be fired. He’s only one guy who’s worked for 3 or 4 corporations. Government has actually had these policies in place as long, if not longer, than the private sector.

There is a sexual harassment problem, no doubt. But pretending that a policy prevents it and that corporate America does a better job because it has theoretical “zero tolerance” is poor reasoning. Where’s the data to show that the policy is enforced?

Saying that NBC didn’t enforce it’s policy until whistleblowers came forward is hardly a defense of keeping other accused harrasers in positions of far greater power and authority.

Both of you are injecting criminal justice concepts into a conversation where they are not merited. The drug war analogy is fallacious. I have never argued that Franken should be thrown in jail and prosecuted to the extent that Moore should have been. In fact, I have been very explicit that on a criminal level they are quite different crimes. And the punishment should fit the crime.

But just as a drug user isn’t as bad as a drug dealer isn’t as bad as a cartel leader, doesn’t give any of those three the right to sit in Congress and write our laws.

This is about making sure that zero women are harassed in the corridors of power. There are about 5 or 6 women who Louis CK scared out of a career in comedy. Hundreds of other people who lost jobs over their association with him. Ditto Rose and Lauer.

Read this brave Atlantic article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/i-believe-frankens-accusers-because-he-groped-me-too/547691/ )on a woman just a few years older than me who Franken groped the night of the Obama inauguration and get back to me about why he’s a good role model for progressive young women to be around. He wasn’t. The fact that he did that and subjected her to that turned her off from a career in politics. For every male legislator we insist on forgiving, there are twenty or thirty women they harassed who now will never become legislators or presidents.

So far there hasn’t been a single case of an innocent person being accused. The second there is, get back to me. But so far the pattern is one trickle of one story comes forward followed by a deluge. These men gotta go.

And again, Franken has a lot of money from his entertainment career and will do just fine. We are talking about zero tolerance for people voluntarily asking to be in public life and holding power over others. They go, they get replaced with people who will behave, the culture changes. Talk of restorative justice and criminal justice reform directed towards racial minorities doesn’t apply to privileged males in power, it just doesn’t.

You acknowledge, I believe, that there are two major political parties in this country, We belong to one of them. The other one is pretty ruthless.

Accordingly, no matter how good it may make you feel, we cannot simply say We believe everyone. Period! They lied us into the Iraq War. Do you think they wouldn’t lie to take down another Democratic Senator?

I’m not talking about any particular, recent case. I’m not saying we don’t believe accusers; obviously accusers get the full benefit of the doubt. But to say we act on all accusations immediately and believe everyone is just absurd. The good faith you’re offering will be abused.

Maybe this is the conversation we have to have, and you’ve staked out an ideal position. Fine. But let’s not pretend that real world conditions point to the success of that position. They do not. Maybe a third party would act in good faith. The GOP wouldn’t.

James, maybe you’re busy (my guess) or don’t care to discuss it, but you’ve taken most of what I wrote out of context. I’ve carefully and clearly addressed where we agree and disagree. Quite frankly, your comment doesn’t do justice to what I wrote.

I didn’t feel your characterized my comment fairly either. And I am correcting you in charitable spirit, since we both seek the same aim. A process that is fair to women and to the accused that ensures perpetrators are disciplined and the accused are justly disciplined. This process doesn’t exist in Congress right now, and until it does, and I urge everyone here to support the bipartisan Spier-Comstock bill which will create this process, than resigning is how the accused demonstrate remorse and are restored to the community. They are not entitled to maintain positions of power.

So I disagree with your definition of restorative justice. I have conducted restorative justice circles at my school to mediate student disputes. It requires the student to admit they did something wrong and ask to be readmitted into our community. This requires remorse in order for forgiveness to occur. It also might mean the privileges they had before are not restored until they show a commitment to earning them back. This means that Franken and Conyers are not entitled to being restored to community until they resign, make sincere efforts to repent and work toward forgiveness, and then they can be re-entered into the community. This is what should happen, and I don’t think Franken’s statement or Conyer’s statement rise to that initial task.

Also I have never said the crimes or punishments are the same.

I think I am being unintentionally misrepresented here:

“I disagree with James on zero tolerance. By assigning the same punishment to a range of actions, he’s treating them the same. ”

Nope. Groping an adult and raping a child are far different actions. They only thing they share in common is that they are both disqualifying for public service, which is a privilege you are confusing with a civil right. Franken is entitled to his life and liberty. Moore should not be. But both should be private citizens, one behind bars so he won’t rape again and the other taking the first steps to regain the trust of the public he betrayed. In no way is this treating either incident the same. By standing firm on Franken, we put pressure on the Flakes and Collins of the world to stand with us in voting to expel Moore if he wins. It also helps Jones beat Moore since he can claim to represent a party that punishes it predators instead of funds pedophiles rapists. This takes away their best talking point.

See I do strongly disagree that groping permanently disqualifies from public service. I also think that barring something really egregious an office-holder is in fact entitled to his office for the length of the term for which he is elected, though certainly not entitled to re-election. If we are discussing politics and you say about are disqualifying you are leaving no room for the punishment fitting the crime.